v'ܩ Why The Obama Administration Doesn’t Have A Clue About Guns (Part 2: Child-Proofing All Guns)
Home > Gun Rights > Why The Obama Administration Doesn’t Have A Clue About Guns

(Part 2: Child-Proofing All Guns)

Why The Obama Administration Doesn’t Have A Clue About Guns

(Part 2: Child-Proofing All Guns)

February 7th, 2009

In my previous article discussing the folly of the Obama Administration’s impending legislation I tried to point out the three primary problems that each of their goals share and specifically how these problems apply to the ‘Gun Show Loophole‘. All three of these problems are equally true for the Obama Administration’s goal of requiring all firearms to be ‘child proofed’; The legislation will be ineffective at accomplishing it’s intended goals, it will impede the Second Amendment rights of Americans, and it will further reduce the powers of individual states to create laws commiserate to their citizens.

What is a child-proof gun?

The first, and most confusing, question is how will the Obama Administration make guns child-proof? I suppose they could mandate that all guns be accompanied by a trigger lock. However the folks at www.learnaboutguns.com, who are undoubtedly biased, have some insight into the ’smart gun’ idea and explained some of the problems. While most gun owners would probably agree that most of your guns should be responsibly locked in a gun safe when not in use, your firearm used for self defense is an entirely different matter and this is where the conflict enters between pro-gun activists and anti-gun activists.

Child-Proof Guns Aren’t Useful

Gun owners using their firearm for self defense worry about these new biometric ’smart guns’ and even child locks and how they will impact their security. We can immediately throw out mandated child-locks as a viable solution because it doesn’t address the problem of a child accidentally discharging a firearm (assuming your child is not to stupid to find the key) and introduces the new problem: your gun is not available when you need it. The smart guns may work a long while down the road but the road of solving a problem using new technology is always fraught with peril. I don’t trust that gun manufacturers will be able to make a bug-free ’smart gun’ when we cannot even build secure voting machines. Let’s assume for a moment that these smart gun’s were bug-free, is it really my intention that my child not be able to use my home defense pistol? What if I’m out back in the pool and I can’t hear someone pull into the driveway and enter my home? Now, I don’t think we should leave firearms laying scattered about the home but I do believe your child should know where you self defense firearm is located in the home, how to retrieve it, and most importantly how to use it.

“The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting”

Like I said before, I think one of the primary issues here is the disagreement about what guns are for. Guns aren’t just for hunting and any law that treats firearms as if they are not designed / needed for self defense is missing the entire point of the Second Amendment. Some people will argue that we don’t need firearms anymore. The Second Amendment specifically mentions a well armed militia and we have the military complex to fill those needs now. To those people I want to point out that this was a country born of a violent revolution by the people against the government. Doesn’t it seem naive to think that this will never be necessary again in the future? Our founding father’s thought so. I leave you with this excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In the final article I argued against the federal assault weapon ban.

Author: T.J. Seabrooks Categories: Gun Rights Tags: , ,
  1. February 8th, 2009 at 00:15 | #1

    While I’m not sure I completely agree with TJ on this, I certainly understand much of the sentiment. I don’t think there is really ever going to be a time when I want my kids doing the home protection. If they have time to go get the gun, they have time to come and get me.

    That being said I think that parents are almost 100% responsible for any accidental shootings that occur. The problem isn’t the gun, the problem is the lack of parenting. Stop telling kids that they aren’t allowed to touch the gun, then hide the key in the house.

    First off, hiding the key in the house and then letting them be home alone with it, the key can’t possibly be hidden where they can’t find it. Second, teach your child gun safety. Teach them what it is and how to properly use it under your supervision. Then you don’t have to worry about the curious 9 year old who accidentally shoots himself because he didn’t know how it worked. And oh yeah, don’t let your 9 year old home alone without supervision. He could also start a fire because he is 9 and that’s what happens. Should we ban matches from houses because a 9 year left alone with matches might start a fire? The gun isn’t the problem, the parenting (lack thereof) is the problem.

  2. February 8th, 2009 at 08:16 | #2

    I guess that’s where we differ. I feel that if you haven’t taught your ‘9 year old’ enough for them to be able to defend themselves with a handgun if they have to it is a case of poor parenting - I’d go so far as to say you are FAILING as a parent. You have one job as a parent - get your child to adulthood in the best possible condition you can.. and using a gun is one of the single most important lessons for them to learn.

    I’d say we should look to Switzerland as an example. All males over 20 are required to own a military issued fully automatic weapon while they perform mandatory duty - All citizens must take an annual marksmanship course - at the end of their mandatory duty they keep their weapon and it is put into semi-auto only mode… Police statistics for the year 2006 in Switzerland recorded 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Gun’s are fine.

  3. March 18th, 2009 at 18:22 | #3

    Is there a way to become a content writer for the site?

  4. March 18th, 2009 at 22:44 | #4

    @lorie - Guest posts are welcome on the site. Email a post for consideration to dclark[at]geekpolitics[dot]com if you would like.